It is often said that the Big Bang was the beginning of all time, space, energy and matter. While I believe that the Big Bang happened, I will be arguing that this event was not the beginning of time or energy. My position is that TIME and Energy HAVE NO BEGINNING. They are eternal, they always existed.

I will also be arguing the sub-point that time IS NOT LINEAR, but that past, present and future all exist simultaneously.

My opponent my argue from either science, the Bible, or both (though I will accept also philosophical and rational arguments) that the Big Bang was the beginning of all time and energy, and that time is linear.

My arguments are simple.

1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. Therefore, the Big Bang is not the creation of energy, just the conversion of energy into another form.

2) No matter how far back in time we think of, we can always think of a time before that. So if the Big Bang began time, we could always refute this nothing by thinking of the state of affairs BEFORE the Bang occurred. If it did occur at some moment, then its an event in history, in time, for events can only occur in time. Thus, there was a time before the Big Bang when nothing had as yet, for lack of a better word, exploded.

I see no reason to think of time as merely the occurrence of events, because if all events stops, one could still say that events have stopped for one hour and counting, two days and counting, and when the events continue some amount of time must have passed between the freezing and continuing of events - otherwise they did not stop. The same is true with BEFORE the beginning of the universe at the Big Bang. One could think of HOW LONG the singularity or whatever it was that exploaded/expanded was there before it went boom. This is time, even without any events happening.

Finally, if time has no beginning, it logically cannot have an end called "the present." There is no starting point for time to count from so that we can call where we are the present. If time is eternal, then it was always there, thus the past, present and future must exist simultaneously, for any break in time would imply a start at some point.

If someone was counting since eternity, he would logically take eternity to reach the present, thus, linearly time would never catch up to the point at which we are now. So all of time must already exist.

Please do not accept this debate if you don't believe the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe, and the beginning of all time, space, matter and energy. Opening arguments begin in round one.

Everything you can think of has a cause. Pick anything, and trace the causes back continuously and you return to that religious/scientific battleground, The Big Bang. While the science behind it may appear rather tortuous, it all comes back to one elementary law of chemistry. Matter/Energy cannot be created from a chemical reaction. I state once more. Matter/Energy cannot be CREATED. If you were to rewind, per say, a view of the universe since the view of the big bang, it would get infinitely smaller until it reached a source, a single source, where all the matter and energy in the universe could have been stored prior to the big bang. A black hole. Now consider this. If a watch were to get closer to a black hole, the closer it got, the more it slows. Eventually when it reaches the center, it stop. This phenomenon is due to the gravitational pull of the black hole that distorts time. In essence there is no time in a black hole, so therefore if the synthesis of the universe began from a black hole, then it is impossible for there to be time BEFORE the black hole. If all the matter/energy in the universe was condensed inside the black hole before the big bang, then no time was passing. This view is shared by Steven Hawking, however I can provide an explanation that includes a god. My opinion is that there was a timeless state before the big bang, however in that state, there was only god. Time as we can comprehend could have only been after the big bang because all matter existed in a timeless state. You may ask then what time did god have to create the universe. From my studies, the most logical explanation to this is that god is an all powerful being who created matter/energy and then used the big bang as a way of creating time. If god created time and energy, that means that, unlike the views of my opponent, there was a definite beginning of time and energy in the universe because if not, you would be saying time and energy were made before god, which doesn't make sense based on the time effect of the black hole that contained all energy and matter that god created. The moment the energy/matter was released, that marked the measurable beginning of time because prior to that, it is impossible to have time due to the gravitational pull that eliminates time. To conclude my scientific explanation, a god would not need time to exist because he is the creator of time. This proves that there was in fact a definite genesis to energy/matter and time in our universe.

From a Biblical standpoint

I quote from Genesis 1

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning"the first day. "

Lets take a look at this "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Stop right there. To create the earth and the heavens, matter and energy would be required.

P1 Anything that is created was created at a certain point
C1 If the thing that was created was energy and time by god, then energy and time have a definite beginning
C2 If energy/matter has a definite begging, then they cannot be timeless.
P2 energy/matter existed before the big bang in a timeless state
P3 Time did not exist before the big bang
C3 Time came after energy/matter

This brings up C1 again "If the thing that was created was energy and time by god, then energy and time have a definite beginning"

C4 Since energy/matter came before time, and energy/matter has a definite beginning, then time also has a definite beginning.
C5 It is impossible that energy/matter and time always existed.

He begins with the assumption that "Everything you can think of has a cause." Well, I can think about God, so what is his cause? Obvious, God is a being I can think of that has no cause. I can also think about darkness, which is simply the absence of light, but darkness has no cause. It was simply there with God in the beginning, uncaused. Further, love and wisdom could not have been created by God, otherwise there was a time when God was not loving and was not wise. If he always possessed these attributes, then these characteristics must be as eternal as he is. This means there was no beginning of knowledge, for God always knew. There was no beginning to power, or else God was once powerless, and therefore, its not true that anything we can think of has a cause or beginning. There was no cause for any of the things I just mentioned; they always were, eternal with God and uncaused.

Pro emphasizes his point, saying, "Pick anything, and trace the causes back continuously and you return to that religious/scientific battleground, The Big Bang." So does God"s wisdom originate with the Big Bang? Did darkness originate with the Big Bang? If so, then was there light in existence before the Big Bang?

Con brings speculative ideas into the discussion about a black hole slowing a watch is somehow slowing time; no it isn"t, its slowing the watch. The watch isn"t time itself, because if the watch slows to a complete stop, we could ask the question: HOW MUCH TIME HAS PASSED since the clock stopped? And if the watch comes out of the black hole and begins to tick again, we could argue that some amount of time had to lapse between the watch stopping and starting again, otherwise, you"d have to deny that the watched stopped at all. This would be like saying that just because you couldn"t observe the fact that the watch stopped, that therefore it didn"t stop, which is philosophically fallacious. This shows that time is not simply the passing of events, for if all events stop, a certain amount of time still passing since the stopping of the events. We are accustomed to having periods of time between events, just as there is a period between each tick on the clock. If all events in the universe stopped, that freezing of events would simply be another event. And time lapses between that event to show how long the universe of events has been stopped, just as one could ask how long water was frozen into ice. So Con is wrong in simply equating time with events.

So while there may be no events going on in the black hole, time is still passing. But Con goes on to contradict the very point he is making. He says, "If all the matter/energy in the universe was CONDENSED inside the black hole BEFORE the big bang, then no time was passing." This proves again that energy was not created, because if existed in condensed form, it merely changed its form at the Big Bang. Something which does not exist cannot be CONDENSED INSIDE anything! That"s like saying Santa Clause or Bigfoot were condensed in the black hole, no, they didn"t exist period. Also notice he was forced to say this condensing phase occurred BEFORE the Big Bang, which again shows the existence of time prior to the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is an event, and event only occur IN TIME, therefore time existed prior to the Big Bang.

Con says Stephen Hawking shares his view, but so what? What does this prove? I could name folks just as intelligent and distinguished as Hawkings who agree with atheists that God doesn"t exist, does that make them right? Many intelligent folks believe in all kinds of strange things, but does it make them right? No. Such appeals to authority prove nothing.

Con says, "that god is an all powerful being who created matter/energy AND THEN used the big bang as a way of creating time." So his theory involves God creating time AFTER he created matter and energy, which proves time already existed anyway because without time there can be no "before" and "after." This is the language of time.

I never said that "time and energy were made before god," because I don"t believe God was made, he always existed, just like time; and time is just as much an attribute of God as his wisdom, knowledge, power and love.

Now, let me list some points for Con to ponder:

1)Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and that is a known fact of science, therefore, God didn"t create energy.

2)If God created energy, with what did he create it? The Bible describes God as being powerful, and power is energy, thus, God always had energy as one of his attributes, thus, energy always exited. Isaiah 40:26 says that God used "power" to create the stars, and what is power if not energy? All matter is energy in condensed form as proven from the explosion of the atom bomb. So the point is that if God create energy, he himself was powerless, having no energy with which to create anything in the first place. Energy is thus an eternal component of God.

3)Because we, and all other created things, are finite, we can only experience time in a linear way, since we have a beginning. But God does not have a beginning, so he exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously. Now if the future does not yet exist, I would like Con to tell us how does God know the future? Does he make an educated guess based on current circumstances? Does he look into a crystal ball? Or is he there? If the future already exists, the Big Bang certainly didn"t create it.

4)The Bible itself speaks of time being in existence before the Big Bang. Psalm 90:2 says that God existed from eternity to eternity, which all scholars know means the eternal past and eternal future, but what is "eternity" if not time? Thus time was always there.

5)Since events only occur IN TIME, then to postulate such a contradictory idea as BEFORE time existed would also be to say that God was incapable of doing anything before the Big Bang occurred. There could be no fellowship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nor could God even think, for even thoughts are events which occur in time. He couldn"t even create for that matter, for this too is another action. A God outside time would not just be timeless, but also immobile. I therefore propose that linear time doesn"t exist, but is simply the way finite beings who live linear lives experience time which by nature is eternal. Just as we experience the sun rising and setting when in fact it"s the earth that goes around the sun and not the sun that goes over and under the earth.

Genesis 1 says God created the heavens and the earth, not time and energy. Its possible to have time and energy but no matter. In fact, God used previously existing energy to create the matter " the heavens and earth " of Genesis 1. So energy, the power God used to form all the matter in the universe, existed before God created the universe at the Big Bang. If God didn't have this energy, he would be powerless to create anything. Isaiah 40:26 shows he used "power" to make the stars. The stars are condensed forms of power (energy) just like all other physical things.

Genesis 1 doesn"t discuss time or its creation, so where does Con find TIME being created in Genesis 1?

Nice try on my opponent's part, but you will need to try it again. I have enjoyed this debate so far and look forward to your rebuttals.

I will begin my rebuttal by simply re-explaining the watch theory. I said as it is getting closer to the center of the black hole, then it would slow down. In actuality the point I was trying to make was that in the center of the black hole there is no time being passed due to the gravitational warp of gravity. My opponent still fails to understand that there is no time outside of singularity, because no time was passing.

He says "The watch isn't time itself, because if the watch slows to a complete stop, we could ask the question: HOW MUCH TIME HAS PASSED since the clock stopped?" He is right in that the watch is not time itself, however, it is in fact a measure of time. If the clock stops working inside the black hole, then there is no time passing. The funny thing about singularity is that this question doesn't even apply "HOW MUCH TIME HAS PASSED since the clock stopped"
The clock never started. That is what he fails to comprehend. If the clock never started, then there has been no time until the clock starts... Thus he himself has aided me in proving my point that time had a definite beginning.

Now onto my Cause/Effect debate. When I meant trace anything, I was referring to matter. Of course God had power and emotions etc. Yes it is fair to say those emotions are eternal.

Now onto my opponents argument.

"So while there may be no events going on in the black hole, time is still passing." In which way exactly is time passing in singularity if all the matter/energy in the universe is inside a block whole where it is impossible for time to pass? I have previously explained that is not possible for time to pass due to the gravitational time warp the black whole, but my opponent thinks that magically, time was just ticking.

"So while there may be no events going on in the black hole, time is still passing. But Con goes on to contradict the very point he is making. He says, "If all the matter/energy in the universe was CONDENSED inside the black hole BEFORE the big bang, then no time was passing." This proves again that energy was not created, because if existed in condensed form, it merely changed its form at the Big Bang."

I do not actually contradict what I am saying. Just because matter and energy were around before the big bang, does not mean that that they were not created.

P1 Singularity is the beginning of all matter/energy

P2 God could have existed in a state outside of singularity to create it

P3 God could have created singularity.

P4 If god created all the energy in singularity, then he used no energy to do it

C1 If god created singularity, and singularity was the genesis of matter/energy, then matter and energy have a definite
beginning

P4 No time passes within singularity

P5 At the moment of the big bang, all the matter/energy from the black hole was released.

P6 The matter/energy is no longer in the black hole

P7 Time was not passing in the black hole before the big bang

P8 Time is passing currently after the big bang

C2 Time has a definite beginning as well

Another point my opponent attempt s to make is that. "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and that is a known fact of science, therefore, God didn't create energy."

Does my opponent really think that the man who created the laws of science in fact is bound by them in anyway/ Us HUMANS cannot create energy or matter, but what sense would it make for the ultimate creator not to be able to do that? It is also possible that the energy was created before the laws of science, therefore he wouldn't have even broken them.

He also claims that "If God created energy, with what did he create it? The Bible describes God as being powerful, and power is energy, thus, God always had energy as one of his attributes, thus, energy always exited. Isaiah 40:26 says that God used "power" to create the stars, and what is power if not energy?"

So my opponent would agree that all power is energy? Does a king have this kind of energy? No he does not. The energy being referred to is the holy spirit, which is not bound by the laws it created. The power god used to create singularity was the holy spirit, and he then used singularity to create the big bang, which in turn created the stars

"Con says Stephen Hawking shares his view, but so what? What does this prove? I could name folks just as intelligent and distinguished as Hawkings who agree with atheists that God doesn"t exist, does that make them right? Many intelligent folks believe in all kinds of strange things, but does it make them right? No. Such appeals to authority prove nothing."

It does not prove anything. I even said I have a different perspective from him that does include God. However, he is an incredibly intelligent scientist who knows significantly more than both of us combined. I think it is fair to say that his opinion is credible due to his years of studies and various academic achievements.

"The Big Bang is an event, and event only occur IN TIME, therefore time existed prior to the Big Bang." Although events do occur in time, you would have to agree that a timeline always has a beginning. I will not bother explaining the absence of time in singularity again and how the big bang marked the beginning of time.

"Because we, and all other created things, are finite, we can only experience time in a linear way, since we have a beginning. But God does not have a beginning, so he exists in the past, present, and future simultaneously. Now if the future does not yet exist, I would like Con to tell us how does God know the future?"

God chooses not to decide the future, he let's us handle that. He alters his plans for us everyday based on the actions we take. This is a major point in Christianity that means that we are free to do as we choose. Otherwise, sinners could not correct their wrongs on their own and nobody could have ever committed a valid sin because in a way we would have been forced to do so.

"The Bible itself speaks of time being in existence before the Big Bang. Psalm 90:2 says that God existed from eternity to eternity, which all scholars know means the eternal past and eternal future, but what is "eternity" if not time? Thus time was always there."

As I have said on numerous occasions, god did in fact exist before the start of time. He existed before the creation of matter/energy because he is the one who controls it. No time was passing however because there was no time created yet.
Time is just another of his works.

In conclusion, God laid out every aspect of our universe, including energy/matter and time. If god created them, then they have a definite beginning.

When your watch gets broken, does time stop passing? No, it doesn"t. So even if the distortion of gravity makes a clock slow down till it stops, this doesn"t mean that time has slowed down, it simply means the clock slowed down. When Einstein put a clock on a plane travel at supersonic speed, it was moving slower than the clock on the ground. When the plane landed the clock was behind the time of the clock on the ground, so Einstein argued that speed actually slowed down time, and if you could travel at the speed of light, no time would pass. But I believe he was wrong. All he proved is that speed slowed down motion, not that it slowed down time. Time isn"t a physical entity made of matter that can slow down. So-called takeon particles have not been discovered, they are only theoretical. So while I agree with Con that in the singularity there is no motion, or physical activity, I disagree with him that there is no time. He is assuming without a shred of evidence that the passing of time is synonymous with the movement of events, but I see no reason why that ought to be the case, because if all events ceased 24 hours ago, it would be true to say that 24 hours, which is time, has passed since all events ceased. And if the whole universe were to disappear, some amount of time will pass since it has disappeared. So Con would need to show that time is either the equivalent of matter and energy, or at least dependant on their motion for its existence. He has not done so.

He also supposes there was nothing outside the singularity out of which our physical universe came at the Big Bang, so did not God create the spiritual heavens where the angels dwell outside that singularity? Or do you believe the angels live on planets in outer space? God himself was outside the singularity, and he always had power which is energy, thus, energy always existed outside the singularity.

Con admits, "Of course God had power and emotions etc. Yes it is fair to say those emotions are eternal." So if power is eternal, and power is energy, then energy is eternal and has no beginning. This proves energy was not created at the Big Bang, just converted into another form.

Con says, "I have previously explained that is not possible for time to pass due to the gravitational time warp the black whole," but Con has presented no proof that time can be warped. He merely shows that MOTION can be slowed to a stop, NOT TIME. If Con stops moving, does it mean time has stopped? No, it means Con has stopped. I want Con to tell us openly if he believes that time its another form of matter or energy. Is it?

Con also says, "Just because matter and energy WERE AROUND BEFORE the big bang, does not mean that that they were not created." But this assumes that creation, which is an event, took place before the existence of time. I say this because his argument is that time itself began at the Big Bang. So if time began at the Big Bang, and matter and energy were created before the Big Bang, they were created before time existed. But events only take place within time, not outside it. Con is speculating that events such as creation were going on before the existence of time. How does that work, Con? And if events like creation happened before time was created, did not some amount of time lapse between the creation of the singularity, and the Big Bang? If so, then time existed before the Big Bang and was not created at the Big Bang as you claim. But even worse, if you have the creation of the singularity as an event occurring before the existence of time, then how do you know time came into existence at all, and that all the events today (just like the creation of the singularity) do not depend on the existence of time?

Con"s Pemise1, "Singularity is the beginning of all matter/energy," is speculative at best. We are only able to observe the inside of this universe; we can"t observe outside of it in order to know there is no energy (or matter for that matter) outside the universe. How does Con know? Has be been on the outside? He"s acting like a man who spent his whole life in the desert denying the existence of snow just because he"s not been able to go to where the snow falls. We are not able to go to the borders of this universe to peek and see what lays beyond it.

I agree with premise 2 and 3, but Premise 4, "If god created all the energy in singularity, then he used no energy to do it," is again fanciful and speculative. If God created all the energy in the singularity, what about that shows that he could not have used energy to do it? Why couldn"t there be energy outside the singularity, which is the power of God anyway, and God infuse this previous existing energy into the singularity? Con seems to think there is a difference between God"s power, and energy. Con, what is the difference between power and energy? Which dictionary are you reading? If God had no energy before he created the singularity, that means God had no power, he was powerless, and therefore unable to create the singularity in the first place.

My opponent says, "So my opponent would agree that all power is energy? Does a king have this kind of energy? No he does not." However, the word "power" when applied to a king is talking about his authority over his subjects; this isn"t the meaning when used in Isaiah 40:26. God didn"t use authority over us to create the universe, in fact, we didn"t exist yet. He used "power" as a part of his nature. Con attempts to identify this power by saying, "The ENERGY being referred to is the holy spirit, which is not bound by the laws it created. The power god used to create singularity was the holy spirit."

Notice here the Con agrees that God used ENERGY to create the singularity, therefore, he is admitting that energy existed before the singularity, and therefore it must have been eternal since his own argument is that creation begins with the singularity. But then he tries to identify this EGERGY as the holy spirit. This contradicts the Bible:

"Not by might NOR BY POWER, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty." (Zec 4:6)

This verse shows that God"s power, his energy, IS NOT his Holy Spirit, but something just as separate and different as his might. Acts 10:38 mentions both separately, "the Holy Spirit AND power." Power is something the Holy Spirit "has," thus, Romans 15:13 speaks of "the power OF the Holy Spirit." So the Holy Spirit is not power, and since Con admits God"s power is energy, then we have energy before the Big Bang, existing eternally. After all, without this energy, God could not create anything. Con cannot overcome this fact. Romans 1:20 calls it "ETERNAL power," which is "ETERNAL ENERRGY."
Also, the Holy Spirit is God. When Annanias lied to the Holy Spirit he was lying to God. (Acts 5:3-4) The Holy Spirit is a living being that can speak (Acts 13:1-4), an is uncreated, eternal. (Heb 9:14) So when Con says God created the singularity with the Holy Spirit, he is saying God created it with himself!

.Now I agree with Con that a timeline always has a beginning, but he needs to understand that this timeline was the invention of men who began counting from the Big Bang. But God, who always existed, never began to count, for he has already experienced all of time. Thus, time cannot be linear, or else God would be waiting for tomorrow to come just like the rest of us; and in that case, how could he know the future? At best, he would only be able to offer an educated guess based on current circumstances. But if he is already there, in the future, we have good reason for confidence when he says that he knows for sure what will be a thousand years from now.

Linear time is just we way we experience time, just as we experience seeing the sun rise over and set under the earth. But both are illusions of the finite mind that cannot see reality no other way except how they are designed to see it with their eyes and experience it with other senses. But we can use critical thinking to see when our senses of perception are in error.

Con says, "God chooses not to decide the future, he let's us handle that." But I never said that God decides what we will do in the future, I argued that he merely KNOWS what we will do in the future because he is already there. Just because a parent may know what a child will do doesn"t mean the parent chooses for them.

"God knows everything." (1 John 3:20)
"I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come." (Isa 46:10)
"Before a word is on my tongue, you know it completely." (Ps 139:4)

These verses show that God know the future, so how does he know it? I propose there are some things that simply cannot be know just by guessing from current circumstances. God must be in that future to know what will happen. Does this impinge on our free will? No, because if you had two choices, A and B, the fact that God knows in advance that you will choose A doesn"t in anyway show you didn"t have the free will to choose B. If we were going to choose B, God would have known in advance you would choose B and would not have prophesied that you will choose A. I know that my brother will choose to eat pizza over a bowl of rice. Doesn"t mean he doesn"t have free will, I just know what choice he will make. But as a human I am limited. I can"t know every choice he will make. God does because he lives in the future where the choice is already made.

Con didn"t deal with the crust of my argument from Psalm 90:2. He admits God always existed, but doesn"t deal with the point I made. This verse tells us God existed from "everlasting to everlasting," or, as some versions put it, "from eternity to eternity." I asked Con "what is eternity if not time?"

Con still hasn"t told us how God knows the future. If the future does not yet exist, God has to guess along with the rest of us, what the future holds. That isn't Biblical. God doesn't guess, he KNOWS.

"When your watch gets broken, does time stop passing? No, it doesn"t. So even if the distortion of gravity makes a clock slow down till it stops, this doesn"t mean that time has slowed down, it simply means the clock slowed down."

Pro also says ", I disagree with him that there is no time. He is assuming without a shred of evidence that the passing of time is synonymous with the movement of events, but I see no reason why that ought to be the case, because if all events ceased 24 hours ago, it would be true to say that 24 hours, which is time, has passed since all events ceased. "

I am not necessarily assuming that. My sources are http://hubblesite.org...
This site clearly shows that the clock that approaches the black hole slows down in time until no time passes, in essence singularity.

The problem with Pro's arguement that the watch is not broken. It is measuring time correctly. The watch never started because time itself has never began as I have previously stated.

Pro goes on to discuss how he believes Alert Einsteins time theory is wrong by saying "When Einstein put a clock on a plane travel at supersonic speed, it was moving slower than the clock on the ground. When the plane landed the clock was behind the time of the clock on the ground, so Einstein argued that speed actually slowed down time, and if you could travel at the speed of light, no time would pass. But I believe he was wrong. All he proved is that speed slowed down motion, not that it slowed down time."

I believe Einstein is correct and that Pro's opinion is incorrect in the way that since the clock is a way of measuring time, if the clock is slowing down, then time is is slowing down in relativity to the clock . An example of this is Einstein's twin theory, which states that if one twin were moving at supersonic speed while the other remained at normal speed, then the twin going faster would age slower.

Pro says "Con admits, "Of course God had power and emotions etc. Yes it is fair to say those emotions are eternal." So if power is eternal, and power is energy, then energy is eternal and has no beginning. This proves energy was not created at the Big Bang, just converted into another form."

Power in the sense of control has existed always with god, but this power does not necessarily exemplify energy. God could feel emotions but he does not necessarily need energy to feel them.

I quote

"Con says, "I have previously explained that is not possible for time to pass due to the gravitational time warp the black whole," but Con has presented no proof that time can be warped. He merely shows that MOTION can be slowed to a stop, NOT TIME. If Con stops moving, does it mean time has stopped? No, it means Con has stopped. I want Con to tell us openly if he believes that time its another form of matter or energy. Is it?

It says "Relativity theory states that at the center of the black hole, density becomes infinite, and because of that all things travel towards the center. This means that anything with mass will fall towards the center at the fastest speed possible; the speed of light. Because speed and time are relative to the observer, from our point of view here on Earth things simply disappear into the hole. However, if a person were to pass the Event Horizon, time would stop for that person. As the person fell toward the center of the black hole at the speed of light, his or her perception of the passage of time would stop, because everything would be moving at the speed of light in the same direction. We only notice the passage of time because of the way things move in space; if everything were moving in the same direction at the speed of light, we could not see anything move and hence, we would not perceive the passage of time. Everything would seem to stand still."

From this i can therefore prove that if all the matter/energy in the universe were in the black hole, then no time was passing for any of it because time would have stopped for all of it.

If I were to stop moving, time would not stop because I would be experiencing the same gravitational effects of my peers, thus it is just me that is stopping, not time. But in a black hole, the gravitational pressure is so severe that it stops time itself based on Einstein's relativity.

My opponent attempts to refute my logic by saying

"Notice here the Con agrees that God used ENERGY to create the singularity, therefore, he is admitting that energy existed before the singularity, and therefore it must have been eternal since his own argument is that creation begins with the singularity. But then he tries to identify this EGERGY as the holy spirit. This contradicts the Bible:

"Not by might NOR BY POWER, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty." (Zec 4:6)

This verse shows that God"s power, his energy, IS NOT his Holy Spirit, but something just as separate and different as his might. Acts 10:38 mentions both separately, "the Holy Spirit AND power." Power is something the Holy Spirit "has," thus, Romans 15:13 speaks of "the power OF the Holy Spirit." So the Holy Spirit is not power, and since Con admits God"s power is energy, then we have energy before the Big Bang, existing eternally. After all, without this energy, God could not create anything. Con cannot overcome this fact. Romans 1:20 calls it "ETERNAL power," which is "ETERNAL ENERRGY."
Also, the Holy Spirit is God. When Annanias lied to the Holy Spirit he was lying to God. (Acts 5:3-4) The Holy Spirit is a living being that can speak (Acts 13:1-4), an is uncreated, eternal. (Heb 9:14) So when Con says God created the singularity with the Holy Spirit, he is saying God created it with himself!"

I did not say that god used energy to create singularity. I referred to the holy spirit (ie god)being a different type of spiritual energy, not the energy you are thinking of. Yes in a way I am kind of saying that God created singularity using his own spirit.

He says "" Power is something the Holy Spirit "has," thus, Romans 15:13 speaks of "the power OF the Holy Spirit." So the Holy Spirit is not power, and since Con admits God"s power is energy, then we have energy before the Big Bang, existing eternally" Gods power is energy, but again, a spiritual energy, an energy that can create matter, others forms of energy and time itself.

Pro says here that "Con says, "God chooses not to decide the future, he let's us handle that." But I never said that God decides what we will do in the future, I argued that he merely KNOWS what we will do in the future because he is already there. Just because a parent may know what a child will do doesn"t mean the parent chooses for them.

"God knows everything." (1 John 3:20)
"I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come." (Isa 46:10)
"Before a word is on my tongue, you know it completely." (Ps 139:4)

I agree with him. He misinterpreted what I was saying. Of course he is all knowing but he is not all deciding. We are free to do as we choose, however he already knows what has happened. I do not see the point of this portion of the debate but I do agree with you that god does know the future.

The last point Pro tries to make is that "Con didn"t deal with the crust of my argument from Psalm 90:2. He admits God always existed, but doesn"t deal with the point I made. This verse tells us God existed from "everlasting to everlasting," or, as some versions put it, "from eternity to eternity." I asked Con "what is eternity if not time?"

The theology definition of eternity "a state to which time has no application; timelessness."

This definition proves that God could have existed when there was no time and that he does not need time to exist. Time can be measured by many things and it is effected by many things. If none of those factors are present, then there is really no time.

Con says: "This site clearly shows that the clock that approaches the black hole slows down in time until no time passes, in essence singularity." How does showing that a clock would slow down if it gets near a black hole prove that time itself would be slowing down? Yes, we use the clock to measure time, but like I said before, the ticking of the clock isn"t time itself, so even if the clock slows down this doesn"t prove that time is slowing down. Think of the many clocks that are still ticking speedily while that clock which is near the black hole slows to a stop. What slows down is the theoretical clock, not time itself. So let me ask Con directly, what do you say time is? Is time the movement of events? Yes or no? If your answer is no, then you have not proved that because a black hole can slow down events that it can slow down time. If your answer is yes, you need to provide evidence that time is the same thing as events.

Con says: "The watch never started because time itself has never began." Stated, not proved. What arguments have Con given us to show that time didn"t exist before the black hole singularity? None. He merely assumes this without proof. And no amount of appeals to authority, quoting scientists who agree with him won"t help him anymore than it would help my case if I quote scientists who disagree with him. Truth isn"t decided by who can quote the most authorities, but by the weight of the evidence presented.

Con says: "the clock is a way of measuring time, if the clock is slowing down, then time is is slowing down in relativity to the clock."

Now tell me if this makes sense. A clock on your wall and another on a plane. The one on the plane moves slower than the one on your wall. Now does it make sense to say that time slowed down on the plane, but didn"t slow down everywhere else? When the plane stopped moving, did time race to catch back up with the time in the rest of the world? In that case, did events on the plane start moving faster to catch up with time on the outside? Or is time still a little behind on that plane till this very day? Its obvious that the gravitational pressure on the clock on that plane was a force that slowed down the motion of the clock, but that this doesn"t in any way slow down time is proven in the fact that other factors could also make a clock slow down, none of which involve slowing down time, such as the clock"s battery dying. That could make the clock move slower. Or maybe the clock is broken in some way and needs fixing. None of these things that slow a clock, slow down time, so I think it was wrong for Einstein to conclude that time slowed just because the clock slowed. He was equating time with motion, but this need not be true either, for if we all started moving in slow motion, if we all decided to do things more slowly, this wouldn"t mean time has slowed down. It would only mean motion has slowed down. If for some environmental reason, or some virus were to spread that cause us to be slower, it wouldn"t mean time has slowed. If some celestial event caused the earth to spin slower and move around the sun slow, this wouldn"t prove that time is slowing down. Only that certain objects in time were slowing down. The same is true of the singularity. Anything in the singularity was so slow it wasn"t moving, that doesn"t show there was no time, only that there were no events.

In fact, my opponent has argued that God created the singularity. Obviously, the singularity couldn"t exist before God made it, so there was a state of affairs before God made the singularity. So we have a BEFORE and an AFTER, which is the language of time; so its pointless refusing to admit time existed before the singularity. To claim there was no time would be to deny that that God existed BEFORE the singularity. Psalm 90:2 says that he did, and my opponent says that he did. But if God didn"t exist BEFORE the singularity, then the singularity must have always existed with God, which can"t be true because God created it. So Con has to give up one of these positions. Either God didn"t create the singularity, and it was always there with God, or else God was there BEFORE the singularity and thus we have time, a before and after before the Big Bang.

Con says: "An example of this is Einstein's twin theory, which states that if one twin were moving at supersonic speed while the other remained at normal speed, then the twin going faster would age slower." Well, there is a disease that makes people age faster, but nobody thinks this is proof that time is speeding up for them. http://www.google.com... So I don"t see how aging slower would prove time is slowing down. If I had a miracle drug that just taking one pill could stop all signs of aging in my body, and I could remain physically the same as I am now at 29 years old for the next 50 years, would that show time has slowed down? No, it wouldn"t.

Con claims that God"s power is control, but isn"t energy. This is wrong. Even John Gill"s Exposition of the Entire Bible says Isaiah 40:26 discusses the omnipotence of God. God is all-powerful, that is, he has unlimited energy with which he can do all things. Malachi 3:6 says: "I the Lord do not change." 1 Timothy 6:16 also describes God as the "who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light." UNAPPROACHABLE LIGHT must be a tremendous amount of energy God is emitting, for light is energy, isn"t it? God has always been cloaked in light.

"And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb." (Rev 21:23) If this light, the glory of God, was created, then Con is saying that God was not always glorious. This would contradict Malachi 3:6 which says that God doesn"t change.

Notice his quote talks about "infinite density," what the heck is that? Can something be infinitely dense? I challenge Con to tell us how such a situation is possible. It seems to be, no matter how small something is compressed, it can"t be infinitely small, for that would be no different from saying it doesn"t exist! So Con"s version of the Big Bang would have us believe that nothing at all was in the singularity, so then, what exploded? Nothing has no properties, no potentiality, to explode and become the universe as we know it.

Con"s source admits that "speed and time are relative to the observer," so why can"t linear time be simply our subjective way of experiencing time, while time itself is eternal? Just because we experience time in a linear way doesn"t prove time is linear!
That"s the point Con keeps missing. The because the person in the black hole experiences events differently (slower) from the person outside the singularity, doesn"t mean time has slowed or changed in anyway, just as us seeing the sun move differently from on earth as an astronaut would from in space, proves the sun has slowed down or changed in anyway. These are just different ways of seeing the same thing because we are looking at it from different directions, in different circumstances. But just as the sun hasn"t changed, neither has time, none of them has slowed down. We simply experience the events differently. It doesn"t seem logical to use our subjective experience of events to prove that time has slowed down. What is time made of anyway, that it could be slowed down? Takeon particles have not been discovered. Scientists still don"t know that time is, except that it"s the structure within which all events happen. But if you take away all events, that doesn"t prove you have taken away time, anymore than vacating a house removes the house.

Now Con keeps going on and on about all matter/energy being in the singularity, but how does he know our universe (which was inside the singularity) is all there is? I ask him where God put heaven when he created it, and all the angels, he didn"t answer. Were they too, in the singularity? How do you know the angels were not created before the Big Bang occurred? How do you know they were not other singularities and other universes? You don"t, and you can"t, because we can"t get outside this universe to observe if they are any others. So you haven"t proven there was no time outside the singularity.

Con says: "I referred to the holy spirit (ie god) being a different type of spiritual energy," so if God himself is energy, and he used this energy (himself) to create the singularity and by extension the universe, then this God-energy was not created at all, only converted into a different from, which is the kind of energy we have today, but its still energy. So even if this were true, it still refutes my opponent"s argument. Though, it would in a way be like pantheism, because it would mean God transformed a part of himself into the singularity and into the energy with which the universe is made.

Con says: "Gods power is ENERGY, but again, a spiritual energy, an energy that can create matter, others forms of energy and time itself." Notice here he no longer argues that God"s power is simply God"s CONTROL, but now he admits it is his ENERGY. He now says it is "spiritual energy," well, what"s that? How does it being "spiritual" make it different from, say, electricity, or heat? Both are invisible, an intangible. In any case, this agrees with my argument that the energy wasn"t created, but only TRANSFORMED into another form. So the "spiritual" (whatever that means) energy was transformed into normal energy as we know it today. I don"t see how this shows time was created.

Con defines eternity as "a state to which time has no application; timelessness." But the word simply means "forever." To say that God existed in eternity is simply to say he ALWAYS existed, and ALWAYS is TIME. So time is eternal.

Pro says "How does showing that a clock would slow down if it gets near a black hole prove that time itself would be slowing down? Yes, we use the clock to measure time, but like I said before, the ticking of the clock isn"t time itself, so even if the clock slows down this doesn"t prove that time is slowing down. Think of the many clocks that are still ticking speedily while that clock which is near the black hole slows to a stop. What slows down is the theoretical clock, not time itself. So let me ask Con directly, what do you say time is? Is time the movement of events? Yes or no? If your answer is no, then you have not proved that because a black hole can slow down events that it can slow down time. If your answer is yes, you need to provide evidence that time is the same thing as events."

What pro fails to understand is that the clock is still going the same speed in relativity towards the viewer of it. For example, a person beside it could see it still traveling at a normal speed, however it is only because he himself has slowed down as well. Time is another dimension, one that can be warped. Time is also not the movement of events but the order in which they occur. Pro tries to say that other clocks are still ticking speedily, which is true, but there is no time passing within the black hole where THE ONLY CLOCK COULD BE. In singularity all of the matter/energy is confined in a black hole so therefore there is relatively no time happening.

Pro says Con says: "The watch never started because time itself has never began." Stated, not proved. What arguments have Con given us to show that time didn"t exist before the black hole singularity? None. He merely assumes this without proof. And no amount of appeals to authority, quoting scientists who agree with him won"t help him anymore than it would help my case if I quote scientists who disagree with him. Truth isn"t decided by who can quote the most authorities, but by the weight of the evidence presented.

I have stated so may times as to why there is no time before singularity it is not even funny. I explained my clock example countless times to him and this example proves that there could be no time before the big bang. He says that time is existing elsewhere, because clocks are ticking elsewhere, and while this applies currently, it has no relevance to singularity as there was no elsewhere. The concept I'm quoting is referred to as Relativity, which is a highly respected scientific law. I made no claim to authority, it just happened that the people I quoted happened to be scientists that are commonly known. If my opponent wishes to debate on whether or not Relativity is true, you would be arguing against all the works of the scientific community. Pro offered no substantial evidence as to why it is not true so I do not see any reason for him to criticize me of quoting people when I was more quoting general laws of science. When pro argued my points had no evidence, I provided evidence and he responds by saying it is incorrect of me to do so.

Pro says "Now tell me if this makes sense. A clock on your wall and another on a plane. The one on the plane moves slower than the one on your wall. Now does it make sense to say that time slowed down on the plane, but didn"t slow down everywhere else? When the plane stopped moving, did time race to catch back up with the time in the rest of the world? In that case, did events on the plane start moving faster to catch up with time on the outside? Or is time still a little behind on that plane till this very day? Its obvious that the gravitational pressure on the clock on that plane was a force that slowed down the motion of the clock, but that this doesn"t in any way slow down time is proven in the fact that other factors could also make a clock slow down, none of which involve slowing down time, such as the clock"s battery dying. That could make the clock move slower.

Yes Einstein's example makes perfect sense. Time is passing relatively slower for the clock due to the speed at which the plane was traveling. It was not the gravity difference as pro pointed out because the plane and the wall clock were experiencing the same gravitational pull. In essence the higher speed, the slower time. This is another concept of relativity. If you were to stand on the plane and look at the clock while it was traveling, it would appear to go at the same speed as a normal clock, but only because you were going the same speed relativity. I ask Pro, What would you define time as relatively to singularity? If no time could have been passing in the singularity, then relatively how was any time passing for anything?
If time is "b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future" then wouldn't there absolutely have to be a first event?

Pro says, "Well, there is a disease that makes people age faster, but nobody thinks this is proof that time is speeding up for them. http://www.google.com...... So I don"t see how aging slower would prove time is slowing down. If I had a miracle drug that just taking one pill could stop all signs of aging in my body, and I could remain physically the same as I am now at 29 years old for the next 50 years, would that show time has slowed down? No, it wouldn"t.

The theory is that they are twins and it states nothing about them having any diseases. If no other factors occur to aid/prevent their aging then why would one be younger physically than the other who was not travelling at super speeds.
A miracle drug would prevent physical aging, but you still would be 79 by that time, it is just that you would appear 29. With the twins it is different. One actually is one age and one is another age due to their different experiences of time.

Pro says "In fact, my opponent has argued that God created the singularity. Obviously, the singularity couldn"t exist before God made it, so there was a state of affairs before God made the singularity. So we have a BEFORE and an AFTER, which is the language of time; so its pointless refusing to admit time existed before the singularity.

My opponent fails to see time as an invention of God. You see an entity such as god would not necessarily need time to exist in. He has always existed, but time is measured in the order of events.

b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

To say that time had no beginning is to say that there was no first event.

No matter how you look at it, something had to have happened first, so therefore time could not have always existed.

I cannot address all of Pro's points as I would like to because my characters are running low. I will address them to the best of my ability with the given characters.

Pro says "Notice his quote talks about "infinite density," what the heck is that? Can something be infinitely dense? I challenge Con to tell us how such a situation is possible. It seems to be, no matter how small something is compressed, it can"t be infinitely small, for that would be no different from saying it doesn"t exist! So Con"s version of the Big Bang would have us believe that nothing at all was in the singularity, so then, what exploded? Nothing has no properties, no potentiality, to explode and become the universe as we know it."

A situation in which it is possible is a black hole. http://www.physicsforidiots.com...
Just because something is infinitely small doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
For example if you continuously divided 1 by 2 you would get 1/2+=.5
.5/2=.25
.25/2=.175
.175/2=0.0875

Notice how these will infinitely approach zero, but never reach it, because 2 could never go into something zero times.

Pro says "How do you know the angels were not created before the Big Bang occurred? How do you know they were not other singularities and other universes? You don"t, and you can"t, because we can"t get outside this universe to observe if they are any others"

I would in fact say that angels live in a different universe. I am not hiding from this fact. It is impossible for me to know if there are other universes where time may have existed before it did in our own. All I can say is that even in those universes, there must have been some first event and therefore there must be some ultimate genesis of time.

Pro says "Gods power is ENERGY, but again, a spiritual energy, an energy that can create matter, others forms of energy and time itself." Notice here he no longer argues that God"s power is simply God"s CONTROL, but now he admits it is his ENERGY. He now says it is "spiritual energy," well, what"s that? How does it being "spiritual" make it different from, say, electricity, or heat?

The problem with Pro's debate is that he is just assuming that god's energy was converted into regular energy, but no evidence of this is shown. It could not simply be converted because they are entirely different. I always had the opinion that God's power was an energy, but this does not mean that he transformed his spiritual energy into actual energy. The bible referrers to him creating the stars and other things that require energy, but it is not mentioned that he simply transformed his power into other power, it says that he created it by his will. A spiritual energy is an energy that cannot be measured. The spiritual energy god uses is not like electricity or heat because it shows no boundaries and is able to create anything in his will.

Pro says "Con defines eternity as "a state to which time has no application; timelessness." But the word simply means "forever." To say that God existed in eternity is simply to say he ALWAYS existed, and ALWAYS is TIME. So time is eternal."

Con describes a person seeing a clock moving at normal speed when in fact the clock has slowed down, and uses this as proof that time can be warped. All this shows is that motion can be slowed, not time, for both the person and the clock have slowed down. But if a person sees a clock slow down because of a singularity, it merely shows his perception has been warped, not time. In reality, the clock was zapped into the centre of the black hole in less than a second. The fact that someone going into the singularity would PERCEIVE events differently doesn"t prove they happen this way, anymore than seeing the sun rise and set proves that it circles the earth. So Con"s theory of time is based on flawed human perception.

Con then says that "Time is also not the movement of events but the order in which they occur." So if God creates the singularity, then the Big Bang occurs, that"s an order of events, and thus time was around before the Big Bang, and thus the Big Bang was not the beginning of time.

Regarding my illustration of clocks ticking outside the singularity, he says "it has no relevance to singularity as there was no elsewhere." How does Con know this? How does he know there was no place outside the singularity? Yet he believes in God! So if nothing was outside the singularity, then God was either non-existent, or trapped in the singularity. Yet he created it! He also created heaven and the angels. Where did he put them? In the singularity? Did angels come flying out in the Big Bang? Con has argued from both religion and science, and its high time he fit this science and theology together into a cohesive unit.

Theologically, its incorrect to speak of a first event, or else you have the ridiculous situation of a God who was immobile, who literal existence for an eternity doing absolutely nothing. Not even thinking. In this state, unable to even think, God would not be able to create the universe. So God needs time to exit in order to create, just as he also need wisdom and power to create. These are attributes of God. Time was passing in the singularity in the same way that time passes today even if all events come to a stop. Each thought God was having about creating the singularity were separate events. Creating the singularity was another event. So we have actions occurring, and actions only occur in time.

Con tried to cop out of the science by arguing that God is omnipotent, therefore he doesn"t need time to create the universe. By the same logic, it could be reasoned that such an omnipotent God could cause time to continue passing inside the singularity. I don"t think this kind of logic gets us anywhere. This isn"t about what God can do, but about what he did do.

Con then makes the claim that the twins in his illustration would be two different ages if one travelled at light speed for a time. This is just another way of saying that the physical body of one of them would have undergone less physical growth, that is, its maturity would have been slowed down by the speed it was travelling at. That doesn"t prove the two twins have not existed for the same amount of time, and are not the same age. Con is measuring age by the physical signs in the body, as opposed to counting from the moment of birth to the present moment. This is ridiculous, and merely shows Con is equating physical change with the passage of time. But I would argue that no matter how long an object remains the same it doesn"t prove time has stopped. We could still ask, how long has it remained that way? If the twin outside the plane travelling at light speed or supersonic speeds (?) were to measure the time the plane was in the air from take off to landing, would he not be correct? If the one on the plane has a shorter time to report, how can BOTH be right? Only one can be right, the other has had their perception warped by circumstances, but time remains the same. The twin outside the plane would have the correct view of time. Time itself doesn"t slow, speed up, bend or change; its only our perception of it that does.

A good example is the rainbow. If two people see a rainbow and one walks towards it, to the one walking to it, it will appear to move away from him and go further in the distance, but the one remaining where he is will see the rainbow in the same spot. So where is the rainbow? Both men have had their perceptions warped. They were designed to see this way. We were designed to experience time in different ways according to different circumstances.

Con says, "No matter how you look at it, something had to have happened first," so then did your God have a FIRST THOUGHT? I suppose Con thinks his God only began to think at the Big Bang, and was a vegetable before then. Now God ALWAYS existed, he has no beginning, so he leaves us with the ridiculous idea of a god that literally was doing nothing, and thinking nothing, and feeling nothing, for an infinite amount of time. In that case, if God had no thoughts or feelings, why would he create the universe? This is a complete denial of the eternal fellowship that existed between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit before he made the world. John 1:1-2 describes the relationship between God the Father and God the Son (called the Word) before creation began in verse 3. It says "the Word was with God," and the Greek word for "with" here is "pros." A.T. Robertson in his Word Pictures of the New Testament says that "with God" means the "Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. \8;`1;_9;`2; [Pros] with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other." Scholar William Hendriksen wrote, "And the Word was face to face with God. The meaning is that the Word existed in the closest possible fellowship with the Father, and that he took supreme delight in this communion" (New Testament Commentary, Vol. 4, pg. 70) But if the Big Bang was the very first event, there could have been no fellowship, no delight, no intimacy, between the Father and Son. Con throws out Bible truth in favor of scientific theories. I use both in harmony.

Con tries to give an example of infinite density by dividing 1 by 2 over and over again, claiming you will never reach zero. When the fact is that he already went below zero when he reached .25, because anything behind the decimal point on the number line, such as 0.1, is less than zero. These equations may seem logical on paper, but they don"t work in real life. Because if I gave you a cup of water, and you tried to divide it infinitely, you wouldn"t succeed. By the time you got back to dividing the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atoms, you no longer have water anymore. And you can only divide the atoms into subatomic particles, but eventually you will get to something so small you can"t get any smaller. It becomes impossible to divide and you have to throw it away. I wonder if Con thinks he can divide his money infinitely? How strange that he thinks there had to be a first event, that events couldn"t go back forever, but he thinks he could divide backwards forever. So in that case, is it possible the universe always existed in this state of infinite density and wasn"t created by God? Such theories as Con proposes lead to confusion.

Con then says: "I would in fact say that angels live in a different universe. I am not hiding from this fact. It is impossible for me to know if there are other universes where time may have existed before it did in our own. All I can say is that even in those universes, there must have been some first event and therefore there must be some ultimate genesis of time." But what he doesn"t get is this. We often locate things relative to where other things are. So where is our universe relative to where God put these other universes where the angels and so on are? Our universe is separated from heaven by literally, nothing but distance. So if something is moving outside our universe, again there must be time outside our universe, outside the singularity which began our universe, for events to happen outside such as creating heaven and other universes.

My evidence of the fact that God"s energy was simply converted, is the scientific fact which you accept, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. And science doesn"t claim the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe, but merely the expansion of an already existing universe. Scientists admit they do not know exactly what was going on before the Big Bang, because at the singularity all our physics breaks down. "The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time." http://www.google.com...

Con says that God's energy "could not simply be converted because they are entirely different." First of all, has Con examined God's energy in a lab to know this? Second, God himself became flesh despite being entirely different, so why can't his energy do similarly? (Gen 18:1, 22; 31:30; John 1:1, 14; 20:28) Con isn't supporting anything he says about God's energy by science, or the Bible, but I have, so vote Pro.

Pro says "Con describes a person seeing a clock moving at normal speed when in fact the clock has slowed down, and uses this as proof that time can be warped. All this shows is that motion can be slowed, not time, for both the person and the clock have slowed down. But if a person sees a clock slow down because of a singularity, it merely shows his perception has been warped, not time. In reality, the clock was zapped into the centre of the black hole in less than a second. The fact that someone going into the singularity would PERCEIVE events differently doesn"t prove they happen this way, anymore than seeing the sun rise and set proves that it circles the earth. So Con"s theory of time is based on flawed human perception."

This is what my opponent has failed to understand throughout the course of this debate. He fails to acknowledge the known scientific fact that time is relative to the observer. Time would appear to be the same for anything viewing the clock going the same speed. He hides behind this fact by claiming that it is flawed human perception. He failed to support this with anything or how it is relevant.

Pro says "Con then says that "Time is also not the movement of events but the order in which they occur." So if God creates the singularity, then the Big Bang occurs, that"s an order of events, and thus time was around before the Big Bang, and thus the Big Bang was not the beginning of time."

Pro does not include the full quote therefore proving he cannot support his claim. The original quote also added that time is a dimension, one that can be warped. Events may have occurred, but they did not necessarily need to occur in time. Time is simply a dimension that is thought to have always existed by my opponent, so i challenged him to recognize that there must have been a first event.

Pro says "Regarding my illustration of clocks ticking outside the singularity, he says "it has no relevance to singularity as there was no elsewhere." How does Con know this? How does he know there was no place outside the singularity? Yet he believes in God! So if nothing was outside the singularity, then God was either non-existent, or trapped in the singularity."

I know this due to scientific studies http://www.physlink.com... Pro fails to acknowledge all the science supporting me and shows none to support himself. I stated that I believe that God existed outside of the singularity. It i possible there are other areas in space outside our own universe for god to exit in without being trapped in singularity. That simply makes no sense.

Pro says "Theologically, its incorrect to speak of a first event, or else you have the ridiculous situation of a God who was immobile, who literal existence for an eternity doing absolutely nothing. Not even thinking. In this state, unable to even think, God would not be able to create the universe."

It is not incorrect. In fact, it is highly probable. The first event to occur in the dimension of time is defined as the first event. It is agreed upon by scientists that the dimension of time was created by the big bang. God would not need this dimension to exist in as we do so it is pointless to argue that god

Pro says " But what he doesn"t get is this. We often locate things relative to where other things are. So where is our universe relative to where God put these other universes where the angels and so on are? Our universe is separated from heaven by literally, nothing but distance. So if something is moving outside our universe, again there must be time outside our universe, outside the singularity which began our universe, for events to happen outside such as creating heaven and other universes."

I get what you are saying, I just disagree. It is likely that the big bang was the creation of time i our universe, and the creation of time in others was another big bang. Pro says that time is required for the creation of the heavens, but I diagree. It makes no sense for one single dimension to have always existed when it was god who laid out the concept of everything including time.

Now for my favorite part of the debate! Pro says "Con tries to give an example of infinite density by dividing 1 by 2 over and over again, claiming you will never reach zero. When the fact is that he already went below zero when he reached .25, because anything behind the decimal point on the number line, such as 0.1, is less than zero."

Pro continues to say "My evidence of the fact that God"s energy was simply converted, is the scientific fact which you accept, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. And science doesn"t claim the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe, but merely the expansion of an already existing universe."

Pro tries to argue that God's energy could have been converted, but I disagree on that for two reasons. God created the laws of science so he would not necessarily need to abide by them because as con has mentioned many times with all of the miracles god has performed, he doesn't go by these laws. Also, there is no biblical evidence for a transfer of energy because Genesis 1 referrers to creation on many levels. It mentioned nothing of conversion.

My opponent has shown time and time again how he really lacks the understanding of general scientific concepts such as Relativity and carries minuscule evidence to support his claims. I have quoted many highly acclaimed scientific sources
while my opponent takes out pieces of the bible that do not even necessarily support his claim. I have discredited all of his theories using his own quotes and scientific sources of my own. His argument is mostly speculative and I do not believe he has proved that time and energy always existed. In fact I think I proved just the opposite.

I state my logic again for the voters

P1 Singularity is the beginning of all matter/energy

P2 God could have existed in a state outside of singularity to create it

P3 God could have created singularity.

P4 If god created all the energy in singularity, then he used no energy to do it

C1 If god created singularity, and singularity was the genesis of matter/energy, then matter and energy have a definite
beginning

P4 No time passes within singularity

P5 At the moment of the big bang, all the matter/energy from the black hole was released.